Mary’s Substack: https://substack.com/@maryrooke

Daily Caller: https://dailycaller.com/author/MaryR/

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcast:

In this interview Geoff and I discussed how Richard Nixon came to be the President, what actually happened in Watergate, and how law fare has changed American politics over the past 50 years. I hope you enjoy!

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

In light of the recent uncovering of fraud in Minnesota, some estimating $9 billion, Dr. Jensen has decided to run for State Auditor and try to fix the deep rooted fraud in Minnesota. We discussed his decision to run and his views on the Republican Party and the tactics they use to win elections. I hope you enjoy!

YouTube:

Spotify:

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

If you feel compelled, please respond to this post with feedback, criticism, or suggested reading. This is part 2 of a larger series of essays I am writing. I will release some of those essays in the following weeks/months when they are completed. You can subscribe to this Substack to receive these essays in your inbox.

The dynamics previously discussed have been expressed and refuted by other, more notable writers than myself, and I am uninterested in rehearsing the reasons for the widespread pastoral reticence—often bordering on timidity—that has characterized Evangelical engagement with politics over the past century. My aim over the past several years has been to construct a Biblically faithful political philosophy—one that is both functional in practice and rooted in the visions and writings of the American Founding Fathers. Few theologians or pastors in recent decades have undertaken this task within the broader Evangelical movement—a sad reality that might lead one to conclude that the topic is unimportant. This could not be further from the truth. Evangelical history gives much testimony and argumentation for a rigorous engagement in politics. The record itself offers abundant examples, though a deeper reading of certain men would benefit most American Christians today far more than any summary I could provide.

Take Charles Spurgeon for example, known as the “Prince of Preachers” and one of the best theological minds God has granted to the Church. Spurgeon was not only convinced that political thought belonged in the minds of Christians, but he was sure that Christianity belonged in the political halls of Congress, Parliament, and the like. Spurgeon famously said,

“I long for the day when the precepts of the Christian religion shall be the rule among all classes of men, in all transactions! I often hear it said, ‘Do not bring religion into politics.’ This is precisely where it ought to be brought, and set there in the face of all men as on a candlestick! I would have the Cabinet and the members of Parliament do the work of the nation as before the Lord, and I would have the nation, either in making war or peace, consider the matter by the light of righteousness. We are to deal with other nations about this or that upon the principles of the New Testament. I thank God that I have lived to see the attempt made in one or two instances, and I pray that the principle may become dominant and permanent! We have had enough of clever men without consciences—let us now see what honest, God-fearing men will do!”

This is simply one small example of the language of Charles Spurgeon on the matters of politics and governance, but Spurgeon does not pull any punches. It is his position that politics and theology are inherently intertwined and that Christianity belongs in the political conversation not just as a another perspective but as the guiding light of nations and governments. Spurgeon’s rhetoric would no doubt be seen in the modern age as “coercive” and some would likely label him, on the basis of this quote, as a Christian Nationalist. Of course, Charles Spurgeon is not a Christian Nationalist in the modern sense – rather he is a Christian who believes that all areas of life are to be governed by his Christian convictions – in other words, he is a consistent Christian. The resolute passivity of the modern age has so dominated the political ethos in Evangelical circles that merely stating or desiring that Christianity be the guiding force for political and governmental change would end in being labeled as an extremist Christian Nationalist. But this label lacks legitimacy.

In the years after Charles Spurgeon, other men followed in his convictional footsteps. Men like J. Gresham Machen, the founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster Theological Seminary, had a similar outlook on politics as Spurgeon. He argued that Christians must be active in the political realm – that activity being a further expression of Christian conviction and true doctrine. His polemics related to federal education are ample for this discussion,

“A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument for tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective.”

Like Spurgeon, Machen did, in fact, discuss policy and governmental affairs. His interest in the governmental education system was perhaps the most important political conversation of his time. What children are taught and how children are taught was of significant importance to him as he saw that education – that is, the indoctrination of children – was something that could either be used to glorify God or to deter men from their ultimate telos. Of course, Machen was not the only Christian scholar who was seriously interested in the problems arising a century ago in education systems in the West.

C.S. Lewis, the famous Christian philosopher, wrote an entire book about education playing a role in the destruction of the human person. His book, The Abolition of Man, directly confronts the problems he saw in education and language. Machen and Lewis were both understanding of the fact that these issues are not only theological – though they are primarily theological – but that they are also political and philosophical. If a textbook is required reading for children and that textbook has a false philosophical framework that is anti-Christian, what is the Christian supposed to do about that? To do nothing when he has the electoral power to do something would be to enable, willingly, false ideologies that are contrary to the created order and the Creator Himself. This places the Christian into a peculiar situation in which he must use his faculties of reason to both construct an argument against the ideologies of evil and speak with conviction about those arguments so to convince his audience (whether that be his family, workplace, church, or Congress) of the truth. A passive way is not found in Spurgeon, Machen, or Lewis.

Lewis, in addition to his polemics on language and education, also warned of the philosophical dangers of relativism and postmodernism in The Abolition of Man. Lewis was so convinced of the comprehensive nature of Christian belief that he discussed many other political topics in other essays. For example, he discussed the significance and dangers of the welfare state saying,

“Is there any possibility of getting the super Welfare State’s honey and avoiding the sting? Let us make no mistake about the sting. The Swedish sadness is only a foretaste. To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death—these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man. Their realization is almost as necessary to our virtues as to our happiness. From their total frustration disastrous results both moral and psychological might follow.”

Lewis saw clearly that the erosion of personal liberty and responsibility threatened both virtue and human happiness itself.

There are also the sincere convictions of G.K. Chesterton, who was outspoken both theologically and politically. He memorably warned: “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.” This is one of many such sayings from Chesterton.

But perhaps the most notable name in recent history related to political thought and action was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer, for those who don’t know, was a German pastor and theologian in the midst of World War 2 and the rise of Hitler in Germany. He saw the Führer take control of the Church in Germany and replace the Crosses with swastikas. He saw the Bible reprinted and changed to fit the ideological dogmas of Nazism. He saw the church bend the knee to Hitler in order to save their own skin (while simultaneously losing their soul). It’s factually correct to say that what Bonhoeffer saw in Germany leading up to the second World War was very much similar to what we have seen in liberal churches across America in the modern age.

How so? There are countless examples. One being that in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many churches across the country saw it as akin to a fundamental doctrine of Christianity to pressure their congregants into injecting themselves with chemicals and to claim that this act of obedience to the liberal regime was one of Christian “love” and “mercy”. Those same people propped up a familiar face in Christian circles, Francis Collins, who was a self-proclaimed “Christian” and the director of the National Institute of Health. Collins was found to have been using aborted baby parts for “scientific research”.

To say the least, the Evangelical church stayed silent on this matter as did most of her proponents like Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition who had both propped Collins up as an exemplary figure for years. This deafening silence is the same kind that Bonhoeffer was so familiar with as Hitler rose to power. It’s the silence that brought him to the understanding that the Church is meant to be the conscience of the State – not the other way around. And further, if the Church is without conscience, the State crumbles quickly.

Another example can be found in the church’s response to transgenderism and the rise in transhumanist ideology. It became the dogma of many churches to engage in what they called “gender hospitality” – that is, calling someone by their preferred pronouns – instead of telling them the truth about their sex and speaking to them in a way that would be in accordance with God’s created order. It was said by many that if a Christian refuses to call someone who is confused of their own sex by their preferred pronouns, they are not loving them and they are even becoming a “stumbling block” on their road to faith in Christ.

This absurd logic was refuted by a couple of brave warriors within the Evangelical church broadly (mostly women) but was never put to death. It became very obvious to me that this lie was embedded into the church culture when I was at church one Sunday and a group of millennials were discussing this very topic. There were about five or six of us talking and out of everyone, I was the only person who was adamant about being truthful and addressing people by their God-given sex. Mind you, this was at a church that was once called the “most conservative church” in my city. The group stood around making excuses about how hard it is to tell the truth and about how ineffective it is to tell the truth and about how much they “struggle” with telling the truth. But what is it that Elisabeth Elliot once said? “A whole lot of what we call ‘struggling’ is simply delayed obedience”. I digress.

These are only a handful of positions from a handful of men across the past two centuries who believed—explicitly or implicitly—that Christianity must touch all areas of life. They rejected any call to compartmentalize faith from public affairs. It is safe to say that these men, along with countless others through church history, would be outcasts in much of today’s Evangelical world—branded as “divisive,” “angry,” or “unhelpful” by many pastoral and intellectual leaders.

I am not primarily concerned here with explaining why this shift occurred. My purpose in citing these figures is simply to show that serious theological consideration of politics was the assumed norm for most Christians until relatively recent events changed the way in which Christians were told to think. To those immersed in the non-denominational ethos and the passive “third-wayism” that dominates much of modern Evangelicalism, this older vision may sound backward. To the theologians of old, such reticence would have been—at best—bewildering, and at worst, a tragic abdication.

From the early Church—whose members were persecuted not merely for private belief but for refusing to render ultimate allegiance to Caesar—down through the centuries, the lordship of Christ was proclaimed over every sphere of life. That lordship remains unchanged today. Yet a biblically faithful, constitutionally grounded, and practically functional political philosophy has yet to be widely articulated for the Protestant church to embrace and teach. Because of our chosen passivity toward politics, there is little to draw from contemporary evangelical thinkers on this front.

That said, what follows is my attempt to articulate and commend a better way forward—one aimed particularly at Protestant Christians in confessing, denominational traditions.

I will begin by attempting to show my aim in political philosophy and my definitions – that is, the definitions of the words I think are critical to a proper political philosophy. It’s my view that the aim of the government and any political movement ought to be the flourishing of the human person. What that means, specifically, would be summed up in what J.I. Packer called “the purpose of theology” in his book, The Heritage of Anglican Theology – that is, that man’s heart would be turned towards Christ and his affection be more and more in alignment with our Lords. Thus, the aim and goal of politics, government, and all other works and beliefs under the sun is to more fully know God and do His Will. The political endeavor should be to enhance man’s ability to precisely that end and to not incentivize the opposite.

Politics and Government are a means to an end; the end being union with Christ which is the flourishing of the human person. This means that we must throw off all of the modern prejudices against the Church and Christ as it relates to politics and government if we are to engage in a truly honest quest for political compentency. It has been the obsession of many modern Evangelical writers and thinkers to cast the whole of Christianity into many different parts rather than allowing for the comprehensive nature of Christianity to flourish in all areas of life.

We discussed the contents of his book and the life and legacy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. We talked about why Russian culture — their music, literature, and art — is so rich while their political history is not. We discussed Solzhenitsyn’s time in the Gulags and how he learned of the evil of Communism. We also talked about his 1978 speech at Harvard in which he gives a warning to America and where the West is headed. I hope you enjoy!

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

Dr. Campbell has appeared in most major media outlets, including the Today Show, CNN, and the Joe Rogan Experience. He has given a TEDx talk and was the educator behind the the TED Ed lesson on narcissism.

Dr. Campbell is also co-founder of Wealth Science Analytics, a boutique psychological consulting firm dedicated to combining state-of-the-art research, AI, machine learning, and deep knowledge about the inter-workings of high-performance teams.

We discussed his class on Peterson Academy on Narcissism and how to tell if your pastor or social worker is a narcissist. We also talked about how to analyze the personality of Jesus and how the evangelical church has aimed to feminize Christ over the past 60 years. We discussed hypnosis and propaganda and the future of Western civilization in the age of Artificial Intelligence and social unrest. I hope you enjoy!

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

If you feel compelled, please respond to this post with feedback, criticism, or suggested reading. This is part 1 of a larger series of essays I am writing. I will release some of those essays in the following weeks/months when they are completed. You can subscribe to this Substack to receive these essays in your inbox.

Over the past several years I have been asking the questions related to theological study that are political in nature. It became clear to me, during my time at a certain church in my city, that certain political thought and action in the broader Evangelical church in America was a dangerous thing. Dangerous to the harmony of particular churches and dangerous to particular theological presuppositions that are scarcely mentioned in sermons and theological books and essays. And though scarcely mentioned in sermons or books, these presuppositions remain a central dogmatic tenet of modern Evangelicalism: a resolute passivity toward politics and evasion of the great moral crises of our day.

This became clear through a multitude of scenarios, conversations, and relational dynamics that I have learned are shared among many within Protestant Evangelical circles. For myself, this realization culminated in my church ecumenically partnering with another church who had a pastor that was a Democratic legislator in my state and an outspoken supporter of abortion, transgenderism, and homosexuality. My response to this partnership was one of confusion and disgust – especially because my church had been hailed for decades as being one of the only “Conservative” Christian churches in the city. It seemed that no matter what biblical argument or reasoning I came up with, nothing was sufficient for the pastors and elders within my local church to overturn their ecumenical and financial decisions and return to Biblical sanity.

Their arguments could be characterized as both resolute passivity and evasion of the great moral crises of our day. Pastors and elders failed to even engage in a Biblical conversation about politics and the extension of theological conviction in the political arena. They shut down those conversations and went as far as to label me a “half-cocked liar” and “divisive” while simultaneously discrediting me and savaging my reputation to close friends. And while the sting of those characterizations and actions is likely to still be tender in some place in my mind, I found the whole charade to be mostly concerning because of the lack of clarity or even dialogue on the political. It was obvious that these men were baffled by the idea that their religion had any place in their politics. The extension of theology into the study of philosophy, economics, and policy was an astounding misconception on their end. It was clear to me that if a church has no active political vision, it will devolve into negative liberty consensus not out of conscious decision, but more dangerously out of unconscious indecision. This indecision and lack of direction will cause, in the minds of congregants, a concrete passive attitude and a Jonah-like evasion of the wickedness of man which will ironically turn them into wicked men.

Subscribe now

But this is not the only way in which this dynamic can dominate a local church. Some churches do this not through slander and conscious evasion but through ethos and environment. They will never speak of the doctrines of negative liberty, but they will certainly believe them in action and inaction. They will look down upon the one who brings political issues to light in Bible studies and conversations. This kind of church is so utterly passive that it cannot even acknowledge the agreed upon negative form of liberty. There is such fear in these places of conflict and opinion that one is better off never speaking than to risk the dreadful possibility of speaking what is unspokenly prohibited. How one operates functionally within this context is beyond my analysis. But this way of living within the church is becoming more and more embedded into the fabric of social interaction within Christian circles. I have heard from many that if they even mention a political topic that feels remotely Conservative in these churches, they are promptly and bitterly shut down without explanation. My only comment on this level of passivity and evasion is that it is very similar to the passivity and evasion that comes from families with alcoholic tendencies (I know because I come from one). To bring the issue to light makes you, the one who spoke the truth, the actual issue. It is far easier to punish a person than to persist through the murky waters of unfound sin and dirt within a family – the same can be said about a church. To say nothing and to do even less than what they say is the way of this cohort. A truly resolute passivity and masterful evasion of political issues.

Some would wonder why these sacred dynamics and untold doctrines must be brought to light. Why should we discuss politics? I will go into this further in a later essay, but the simple answer is that we, human beings, are political beings. We exist within a polis (a city), and we interact with individuals within that city. How one interacts with their neighbors is the crux of the political conversation. In the modern age this is hard to understand because of the abstracted federal tyranny of the American government. But in purer societies of old, the most pressing questions of morality, politics, government, economics, and philosophy were all a part of a local conversation that had direct impact on one’s family and friends. It was not an abstract matter at all, but the most personal matter imaginable. But more importantly, it is biblical to care for your neighbors and to do what you can to bring about their flourishing in not only economic ways but also in moral ways. Many objections to coercion and force will be made here, but my responses to those can be seen later on. The only point I am making here is that politics is a conversation that naturally grows out of Biblical theology and Biblical living. To be Christian is to be alive, to be alive is to be a person, and to be a person is to be personal and relational. Politics is inherently theological and therefor inherently Biblical. This is why a resolute passivity and evasion of political and cultural issues from Christians is a seriously dangerous thing – it can bring about the destruction of real lives and real communities.

A resolute passivity has been seen in many ways and, as passivity does, it has shapeshifted and changed in its vocabulary and stance as the culture shifts and changes on its vocabulary and stances on particular issues. A prime example would that of abortion. It’s a word that has been so overused by both pro-abortion pundits and anti-abortion activists that it seems to have lost its true meaning behind an opaque and ambiguous euphemism. This evasive phraseology and vague interpretation related to words like abortion have caused much of the Evangelical and even Conservative movements across America more broadly to either soften their stances on legislation related to abortion or to abandon it on entirely pragmatic reasoning. But Christians must remember the old way of talking about the dismemberment and poisoning of infants in the womb – the old way was much more precise and accurate: it was called murder. And murder is a sin according to the Bible. But in the modern Evangelical church, not much is written on or spoken of related to the great sin of infanticide that America has committed over the past sixty years. Some estimates show 60 million babies have been slaughtered in this country – these are low estimates when considering the abortion pill and other contraceptives.

The point here is that a sin of that proportion and magnitude over that short of a period in history is unprecedented and utterly indefensible. It could easily be categorized as the worst tragedy in human history – but we Evangelicals and Conservatives refrain from proper categorization and articulation and hide behind the passive characterization of infanticide as “abortion” so not to rock the boat. It has been done for potentially noble reasons; many pastors are afraid that if they are too blunt and too truthful on the matter, people could become offended and leave their churches. This assumes that a watered-down truth is better than a full truth – of course, it is not. And it cannot be. A watered-down truth is not truth at all. If one is so resolute in their desire to be nice, the pastorate is not their proper vocation. I say this was all sincerity as I understand that the linguistic challenges brought on by the postmodernists in the past century have convinced most in the West that language and meaning have been severed eternally and the alphabet is but a myriad of symbols forever lost to the objective world.

This same point can be made about many others contemporary issues. Marriage is another popular, but prime example of a word that has lost all of its original meaning and has essentially turned into the opposite of what it once was – that is, monogamous, committed, lifelong relationships between the opposite sexes for the glory of God and the procreation of humanity. In the modern age it is simply a union between two or more persons that receive certain tax benefits. This too has become largely controversial in Evangelical circles. What is marriage? What is sex? What is the purpose of sexuality? All of these questions are ones that would have been assumed in the old world – not by everyone, but by the majority of people on the basis of mimetic reality and Natural Law. Not only is it natural for man to desire women, but it is also what is naturally mimicked because of the heritage of heterosexual marriages across cultures over the span of thousands of years of human history. Marriage has meant one thing and one thing only, but the Evangelical consensus has been to stay resolutely passive on the subject, again for more practical reasons than convictional: in order to maintain the status quo.

Though these are two topics that are critiqued by liberal pundits as tired and overworked, they remain the bedrock of Conservative and Christian thought as it regards our responsibilities to love the least of these and take responsibility for what God has given us. Further, this resolute passivity only naturally creates the foundation for cultural and political erosion on a mass scale. As a proponent of the principle of subsidiarity, I am whole heartedly bought into the idea that the most change can happen most locally. A way in which one can order society is by starting with himself and working outward, not the contrary as is so popular today. This principle requires the individual to first tend to his relationship with God and then his wife and children and then church and so on. There are levels to human relationship within the city (polis) – hence the word “politics” is simply a way of articulating relationship rules and incentives within a society.

One of the ways in which, historically, Americans were able to influence much change was through the preaching of God’s Word from the pulpit. It was believed to be said by Alexis de Tocqueville that “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

It can notably be seen that the pulpits were filled with holy fire and not ridged passivity. This was the engine that ran the machine that was America. And this is the engine that the modern Evangelical pastor, sadly, has opted out of starting – she sits idly in a junk yard when she should be roaring with power and beauty. But this lack of pulpit power has had much negative effect on the broader political climate in America over the past decade especially.

And it should not have to be asked as to what tragic reactionary policies and events could have been mitigated or even avoided if pastors, for the past century, rejected resolute passivity in favor of resolute authority and evasion of moral crisis in favor of engaging the trials and tribulations of our time? Is it lost on the American church that the Bible is all encompassing and living? Is it lost on us that the Word rightly preached still maintains within in it a supernatural power to bring about change and redemption? If it is then we must course correct immediately! Am I old fashioned for thinking that the Gospel is still infused with that righteousness and glory that has brought kings to their knees in submission to Christ and peasants from their knees to the places of high honor?

Christian, pastor, theologian; I plead with you to engage the political arena. The scene will be a bloodied one with much to correct and much more to abandon, but the fates of real men are on the line. The fates of real lives are at stake. And I say, brother, the fate of your own soul rests upon not the resolute passivity of contemporary conformity, but on the resolute and scrappy engagement with the world in which you live. All of church history has led to this – and this age in the church is surely vital. It is an age of confusion and misery. The combination of World Wars, Atomic Bombs, technological innovation, political scandal, Artificial Intelligence, and heightened political violence has led many, including myself at times, to wholeheartedly give up and bow out. But this is the world in which we live – it’s the age in which God has placed you and me. How is it that He could be mistaken to place a soldier in the wrong battle?

After Humanity - Michael Ward

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

Christians Should Defend the Jewish People - Rebeccah Heinrichs

The Right’s 1939 Project - Rebeccah Heinrichs

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

I have just read through Kevin DeYoung’s monstrosity of an essay on Christian Nationalism and I can comfortably say that DeYoung has officially joined the tone-deaf, ideologically crippled, liberal, narcissistic, and blind evangelical theological class of the modern age. These men will go down as the worst class of theological minds in Protestant history. His “questions/arguments” against Christian Nationalism are mostly 90s neoliberal Democratic arguments rooted in a deep seeded desire to maintain a modern American hedonism built on negative liberty.

I am personally not convinced of Christian Nationalism as set forth by Doug Wilson and his sycophants, but DeYoung and other Evangelicals have literally never brought any sort of political philosophical theory to the table that is not simply negative liberty wrapped in niceties, fancy language, and eisegesis. His continual use of “seperation of church and state” is a classic trope and a historically inaccurate use of a statement not found in any of America’s founding documents, but rather in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

In fact, as has been stated countless times by Conservatives, nine of the first thirteen colonies had established state churches prior to the Revolutionary War. In some cases, you were not allowed to vote in those states unless you were a member of a church. That brings about a whole list of problems in and of itself, but the issues that established state churches bring about are much lesser than the issues negative liberty has unleashed on Western Civilization over the past century. Remember, the negative liberty men like Kevin DeYoung implicitly fight for has produced over 60 million slaughtered babies in the past 60 years in America alone. Almost any form of government and political ideology is better than what produced that atrocity.

But let us take a deeper look into DeYoung’s arguments against Christian Nationalism (of course, the Christian Nationalism that he claims he cannot define at the beginning of his essay but still brings forth six arguments against).

Question #1: Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism?

What would you imagine as the best first question or argument against a Christian Nationalism you claim you cannot define? If you guessed “do you renounce Nazism, antisemitism, and racism?” you would be correct (if you’re a 21st century evangelical liberal)! Of course, nobody in their right mind would think this ought to be the first question to ask of a Christian Nationalist unless you had already had preconceived notions and definitions of what a Christian Nationalist is (which Kevin DeYoung claims to not have in the beginning of his essay). Kevin DeYoung is playing a familiar game in his critique of Christian Nationalism — one that is often played by neoliberals and progressives — he is implicitly planting a caricature of a Christian Nationalist identity that is wholly constructed in his own mind and building up this view of Christian Nationalists as racist, Nazi’s, and antisemites so you, the reader, will be more open to his future remarks regarding Christian Nationalism.

This Straw Man tactic is exactly what pseudo- intellectuals like DeYoung have done for years; begin their arguments with characterizations of the people with whom they argue that are overgeneralized, highly simplistic, and in some cases simply wrong. He then implants this characterization of his enemy in the readers mind right from the beginning and expects his readers to carry this false conception of Christian Nationalists through his essay, ultimately convoluting it with Christian Nationalism in the end.

This pulls on the emotional strings of the reader and doesn’t allow for him to truly understand a political ideology or philosophy, but to create a caricature of a particular type of person by using inflammatory and misleading language to describe these people. In this case, DeYoung is taking the Devil to task by using Lucifer’s age old questionnaire tactic so he can always hide behind the “I was just asking questions” platitude to evade taking responsibility for his idiot insistence that most people who are self-proclaimed “Christian Nationalists” are racist, Nazi, and antisemitic.

I would guess, though he never clarifies, that DeYoung is thinking of people like Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson, three of the largest names in “Conservative” media when he wrote this. If not them, then he may be thinking of people like Joel Webbon, Dale Partridge, and their crew of social media warriors. In either case, DeYoung is not dealing with or responding to the best of Christian Nationalist ideology, rather is choosing to take on the weakest of self-proclaimed Christian Nationalists because, well, it’s much easier.

If this is the case, which I cannot say because DeYoung failed to explain who he was responding to and why he was even asking this question to begin with, it would be difficult to argue that any of those people are Christian Nationalists. It would be even harder to argue that any of those people are Christians. So, who is Kevin DeYoung talking about? It isn’t Doug Wilson because he says “I commend Christian Nationalists like Doug Wilson who have called out these destructive sympathies on the right.” So who is it? And is it the Christian Nationalists that he’s calling out or is it the modern right wing Populist Nationalist movement headed up by Nick Fuentes? Or does Kevin DeYoung not know what he’s saying and is conveniently relying on the incompetence of his audience? You be the judge of that. All I am saying is that throwing around labels like “racist, antisemite, and Nazi” at whoever you disagree with is not a way to argue in good faith — it’s actually the exact opposite way to argue and it proves that DeYoung is not arguing in good faith at all.

Question #2: When and how does the nation act as a corporate moral person?

This, of all of DeYoung’s questions, is maybe the most interesting. Here he asks when and how a nation acts as a corporate moral person. Of course, there is no simple answer to this question from a Biblical perspective — but that does not mean that there is not an answer at all. It seems clear that in both the Old and New Testaments large groups of individuals are corporally judged. Of course you have the countless OT references of God judging the nation of Israel and her enemies on particular occasions and Jonah being commanded by God to call Nineva, an entire city, to repent of its sins. In the NT, and more specifically in the book of Revelation, God judges entire churches for their sins. What does this mean? I am not entirely sure — but at the very lease, it means that the hyper-individualistic modern Evangelical tendency toward reductionistic theology is most likely wrong on its face. It seems clear both historically and Biblically that groups of individuals can be judged as moral persons by God.

DeYoung makes the following argument,

“While the Bible teaches that nations can be judged for their wickedness, this is not the same as saying that the nation as a nation is a corporate moral person. Robert Dabney (1820–1898), for example, argued that although a nation is bound to obey and worship the true God, this “obligation is nothing else but the individual obligation of all the members, and nothing more is needed to defend or sanction it than their individual morality and religiousness”’

It is all nice and dandy to quote obscure theologians from the 1800s (I am not knocking all theologians from that time, I love some of them) but DeYoung fails to ponder through the 1,800 years of church history that preceded the industrial revolution and the rise in liberal individualism in the West. Why quote a man living in the most tumultuous and riveting period in human history — during the abolition of slavery in America, the Industrial Revolution, the first Wave of Feminism, the American expansion Westward, the rise in Evolutionary theory, and countless other massive historical events and movements that are characterized by modern Enlightenment philosophy and individualistic assumptions of human nature and telos. It’s a very modern thing to only quote the modern scholars.

This is nothing against Dabney, I know little of him or his work, it’s more an indictment against the lazy and cherrypicked scholarly work of Kevin DeYoung. Why quote a theologian from the time in human history when individualism was the dominant theory regarding human nature? Because, again, Kevin knows his audience won’t do the work to see if other interpretations and theological convictions are more prominent in church history — spoiler alert: they are!

Question #3: What is the purpose of civil government?

DeYoung begins this brilliant critique as follows,

“Many advocates of Christian Nationalism are champions of limited government. At the same time, they speak of government having authority to direct man to his highest and heavenly good. These two sets of convictions seem to be at odds.”

As he does, DeYoung continues to equivocate, convolute, and mismanage definitions of political philosophies. He claims that many Christian Nationalists are champions of limited government — who? Ayn Rand? I don’t think so. It remains clear that the only definitive characteristic of “Christian Nationalism” DeYoung is capable of reciting is “racist, antisemitic, and Nazi”. He now is convoluting libertarianism with Christian Nationalism — so be it. His point is still utterly indefensible and proves his lack of serious political or theological study (or comprehension).

If DeYoung believes that “government having authority to direct man to his highest and heavenly good” is at odds with limited government, he may be surprised to learn that God gave the Israelites only 10 commandments to follow to begin with which later grew to 613 which is a relatively small number when considering that in the United States we have tens of thousands of federal laws. Did God fail to direct man to his highest and heavenly good when giving those commandments? It’s clear from a theological standpoint that a relatively short list of rules and laws can prevent a catastrophic amount of chaos. Of course, this is not to say that those laws can convert a soul to Christianity, as no Christian Nationalist would argue, but it is to say that those laws can prevent, say, the mass slaughter of infants and the widespread American obsession with sodomy.

He then says “Is the purpose of government to protect God-given rights (e.g., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)?” To which any Bible reading person would respond “yes and no” — DeYoung should know that Romans 13:4 says
“For he [the magistrate, the government’s representative] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” So, if by “protect[ing] God-given rights” you mean serving God and carrying out His wrath on the wrongdoer, you would probably be a Christian Nationalist… But again, DeYoung is not constructing his argument in good faith, he is continually equivocating making it almost impossible to follow his line of thinking due to his lack of knowledge related to political philosophy and Biblical theology. I could dissect every single idiot paragraph of DeYoung’s essay here, but I don’t have the time or desire to do so. I will finish with this,

“America’s constitutional order is not oriented to man’s heavenly good. It is designed to keep people safe, peaceable, prosperous, and free.”

This sentence keeps on track with DeYoung’s coming out of the closet as a pseudo- intellectual. He claims that “American constitutional order is not oriented to man’s heavenly good”. Is that so? Just before saying this, DeYoung quotes the Declaration of Independence’s claim that each person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — what of those three things are contrary, in any way, to man’s heavenly good? To go further, it should be noted that Thomas Jefferson, while writing this, changed what John Locke had written before him; “life, liberty, and property”. This change is seriously significant because it shows that the Founding Fathers valued happiness, or in the modern context the word “joy” would be a better fit, over personal property (not to say that they didn’t value property, they most certainly did). Thus, the Founders were even more in line with the Biblical mandate to pursue joy over earthy things.

Going further, it must be understood that in the time of the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution up until the end of the Civil War, Americans referred to America as these United States of America, not the United States of America. This switch in vocabulary is critical to the understanding of the thought process behind the purpose of the Declaration and the Constitution. The Founding Fathers we’re building the framework for a nation made up of sovereign states who would join together in certain military and common good efforts, but the individual States held much more authority in the lives of Americans than the Federal Government. DeYoung fails to recognize any of this in his ungrounded statements.

We must understand that the American federal governing system was set up to allow sovereign states to rule their citizens in a way that they deemed best for the common good and flourishing of their people. The modern mind finds this concept very difficult to comprehend because of the large shift in power over the past century from the States to the Federal Government. That said, when discussing the intent of the Founding Fathers and the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution, we must have at the forefront of our minds the understanding that the Federal Government served the States, not the other way around. And many states did have established State Churches prior to the Revolutionary War and this desire to maintain a tolerant Christian Nation was not lost during or after the Revolutionary War.

In fact it was made stronger in some sense when the Founders declared in the Declaration that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”. This explicit statement made by the Fathers made it clear that the American experiment was founded on the monotheistic God of the Bible. Further, it is well known that the Fathers, even Thomas Jefferson, used the book of Exodus to justify the Revolutionary War with England and their fleeing from tyranny. Pluralistic deism was not in the minds of the Fathers in any way, shape, or form. They believed, in some way or another, in the God of the Bible and built the entire Governing system on that belief. To argue otherwise is unfounded and based on entirely fictitious fantasy.

Thus, to answer DeYoung’s antagonistic question; Civil Government in general is to serve God and to carry out his wrath on wrongdoers. In the United States that is made more explicit in that the job of the Government is to protect the God-given rights of citizens which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, in the United States of America, it can be much easier to argue for some type of Christian Nationalism on the basis of the Declaration and Constitution rather than a Government built on secular negative liberty. There is absolutely no basis for the latter, and DeYoung, had he done any reading on the subject, would have known that. But instead he opted for calling Christian Nationalists racist, antisemitic, Nazi’s. Bravo!

Question #4: What does it mean for the civil magistrate to promote the true religion?

DeYoung begins this argument by saying,

“The argument, specifically as it relates to Presbyterians, is that even if American Presbyterians at the end of the eighteenth century rejected church establishments like the ones that existed in England or Scotland, they were still in favor of a “soft establishment.” That is, they were in favor of a pan-Protestant establishment whereby no Protestant denomination would receive government patronage above another, but Protestant Christianity as a whole would be upheld and promoted.”

We now move forward to the end of the 1700s and DeYoung says that Presbyterians were against official Church establishments but promoted what he calls a “soft establishment” of general Protestant Christianity. This is difficult to analyze because comparing Protestant Christianity in the postmodern and morally relativistic world we live in today to the Protestantism of the late 18th century in America that was dominated by a mimetic social imaginary is actually impossible. There is much more in common in 1785 between the Quakers and the Calvinists in terms of their general understanding of objective reality and moral order than between a non-denominationalist and a Reformed Presbyterian in 2025.

One group (non-denominationalists) believe that the Bible is a means to an end, that end being a large conglomerate church system made up of nominally-minded hedonistic Rousseauians who give their money to cult of personality leaders who, in return, tickle their ears with false teaching and heresy. Thus, it is objectively impossible to make an argument about modern Civil Government on the basis of Presbyterian consensus in the late 1700s — it’s actually quite foolish to even attempt. The world changed drastically in terms of the assumed social imaginary after Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, Russell, and Foucault. And after the Industrial Revolution, both World Wars, the dropping of the Atomic Bomb, Feminism, the Civil Rights movement, the technological revolution of the past century, and so on and so forth. To compare the ideologies of two time periods in human history that were precisely the opposite of each other is impossible, to sat the least.

It is entirely foolish and even slanderous to assume that the Presbyterians in the late 18th Century, had they know what the world looks like today, would have been adamantly against the establishment of a State Church. To say that their desire (though they had good reason, in the time, to assume that Christians and Civilizations would not one day reject objective reality and morality in such a drastic and destructive way) to uphold a general Protestant Christianity through the means of Civil Government is at odds with modern Christian Nationalism is false on its face. The Presbyterians of the late 18th century, had they seen the mass infanticide committed on 60 million babies, the destruction of marriage, the celebration of sodomy, the manipulation of war powers, and the rogue Intelligence Operations of the past 100 years, would (maybe) have rethought their desire to generalize Protestant belief and reject State establishment of the Presbyterian Church.

That said, it’s entirely true that the Presbyterian Churches of their time were on track to be destabilized and destroyed by liberal, power hungry, Marxists like Kevin DeYoung. Men and women focused on “decorum” and not doctrine.

DeYoung goes on saying,

“But that still leaves the question of whether the civil magistrate ought to promote true religion. That depends, of course, on what is meant by “promote.” Does “promote” mean that the magistrate must have a sincere devotion to Christ? Be a regular churchgoer? Have a credible profession of faith? Adorn the gospel by his behavior? Speak of Christ and the Christian faith publicly and warmly? I am in favor of all these things, as God has called all Christians to these things. I want the civil magistrate to be a Christian, and to be an exemplary one at that.

And yet, I suspect that “promote” is meant to entail more than this. But what? Calling for days of prayer and fasting? Giving fireside chats at Christmas that speak about the good news of Christ’s birth? Defending the rights of conscience and religious liberty? Establishing a military chaplain corps? Tax breaks for churches and clergy? I like all that.

Or does “promote” mean supporting churches and ministers from tax revenue? Making religious tests of office? Reforming the church so that its worship, discipline, and doctrine are in line with God’s word? Shutting down churches and religious assemblies that are false and idolatrous? These are bad ideas in my estimation. I might agree with “promote” but the devil is in the details.”

This is the icing on the cake. Here is DeYoung doing what liberal Protestants do best; compartmentalizing Christian belief from Christian living. Detaching Orthodoxy from Orthopraxy. Here DeYoung is saying that he would love for our elected officials to go to church, to profess Christianity, to not tax churches and clergy (you know, the very things that benefits Mr. DeYoung himself), and talk about Jesus at Christmas. What does this sound like? That’s right, the neocon Republican of the past 60 years who gave verbal commitment to Christ and then did nothing to end infanticide and the moral destruction of America.

Men like Kevin DeYoung (and I will add Gavin Ortlund and his decrepit father, Ray) are proponents of a white washed Christianity. One in which men and women merely give verbal credence to faith in Christ and never actually live it out. They project moralism in public but do the exact opposite in private. It’s safe to say that Jesus Christ hated these types of people, and even more, he hates religious leaders who promoted this blasphemous kind of Christianity. These men do not want accountability at any level, especially at the level of Government because it may mean that they themselves would be held to the scrutiny of a higher power rather than to their own papacy in their local Churches. What DeYoung is promoting here is not Christianity, rather it is what John Piper calls “Christian Hedonism” — that is, pretending to be Christians, but actually being heathens.

DeYoung goes on in this section to quote the Westminster Confession and it’s statements on the Civil Magistrate. I am less interested in knowing what the Westminster Confession (which I have much respect for and take seriously) has to say on the matter than on what the Bible has to say. The Bible that DeYoung has thus far failed to mention or even give thought to in this essay.

Question #5: Was the First Amendment a mistake?

This is, yet again, an age old tactic used by liberals to “annihilate” any arguments against negative liberty. He says this,

“If I had only one question to ask a proponent of Christian Nationalism, this would be my first: What do you believe about the First Amendment?”

Really, Kevin? Then why wasn’t this your first question? Why is it your fifth question? Is it because you had to establish that Christian Nationalists must be thought of as racist, antisemitic, Nazi’s before getting into the rest of your baseless arguments about why you think Christian Nationalism is unthinkable? I think so. But so be it, if Kevin wants to claim that his fifth question would be his first, it goes in line with his thread of illogical thought through this whole damn essay.

He goes on,

“Virtually no one at the founding conceived of a political and social order devoid of religion. The purpose of the establishment clause was not to create a strict separation between church and state, nor even to enforce a studied neutrality, but to ensure that religious minorities were accommodated and that religious pluralism was protected in a large commercial republic.”

This statement goes against so much of what DeYoung has said already, but I will look past the inconsistencies — he states that the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that a religious pluralism for minorities was protected. This is true in some sense, but again, the language matters here. The idea that the founding fathers had anything other than Lockean rationalistic philosophy and Protestant (and Catholic) Christianity in mind when aiming to protect “religious pluralism” would be a stretch. The modern mind overgeneralizes “religious pluralism” in our globalized world to mean “all religions”. But this is not the case for the founders as they saw persecution from the Anglican Church in England as the main threat to conscience and personal piety and not polytheism or a false monotheistic god.

We must keep in mind that the Founders came from a long English heritage that was deeply rooted in Christianity, whether that be Catholic Christianity or Protestant Christianity, and did not give much thought to, say, Hinduism or Islam. This is because their world was much smaller and more local than ours and false religions were not on their horizon or within the grasp of their imagination in the ways that they are today. So to say, again, that the early American Christians were giving credence and license to false religions in their desire to uphold a pluralistic Christian nation is unfounded and false. The only false religion they would give credence to is that of the Lockean Rationalistic Philosophical tradition.

Question #6: What is the historical example of the political order you would like to see in America?

I will only comment on DeYoung’s final paragraph in his final argument. I encourage you to read his whole argument here and decide for yourself if it is sufficient. To conclude he says,

“The same arguments are made by Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) in his Social Ethics, where he insists that good and evil will grow up side-by-side in this world and that the civil authority is not given the divine guidance necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff (137). If Reformed Christians today wish to do theological retrieval, we should do it as Kuyper and Bavinck did and admit when our forefathers got something wrong, or at least when they did not have the courage of the conclusions that followed from their better principles.”

It’s a complicated argument because you must concede at least one thing before being able to make this statement. One is that Bavinck (whom I love) and Kuyper were right in their assessment that the civil magistrate is not responsible for killing heretics and those who are unorthodox in their Christian belief. Kuyper makes this point by saying,

“2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.”

I am not in agreement with Kuyper on this point. As stated before, the Apostle Paul did write in Romans 13:4, “For he [the magistrate, the government’s representative] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” So, here we must decide what exactly Paul is saying when he says that the Governmental Representative is one who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Is a wrongdoer one who teaches what is contrary to Scripture? Is a wrongdoer one who blasphemes God? Is he one who murders babies? Defies Scriptural commands related to marriage?

One would have a very difficult time arguing from Scripture that any of those things are not within the biblical confines of “wrongdoer”. But Kevin DeYoung doesn’t discuss any of these questions, he rather evades the topic altogether and hides behind a negative liberty assumed ethic (if there even is one) that assumes that tolerance is the primary virtue embedded in the Biblical concept of liberty. I have much to say about that, but G.K. Chesterton says it better when he says “Tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe in anything.” And this is DeYoung’s main point throughout this whole essay: he believes in nothing and will critique everything. He will not give ample thought to ideas and will slander those who disagree with his postmodern ideology. In all, he loves tolerance more than he loves Christ.

It should also me mentioned that, had Kuyper and Bavinck seen what the tolerant strand of political thought produced in America, they may have reconsidered their political philosophy. Had they seen that millions of babies would be sacrificed to the pagan climate god, women and men would stop getting married and having children, homosexuality would be enshrined, in law, as within the confines of the definition of “marriage”, people would begin to not only dissect their own bodies and attempt to change gender, but would do the same to their children, and that Americans would watch millions of hours of hardcore porn on a daily basis, I think it’s safe to say that they, in som way, would be advocates of a type of Christian Nationalism that demands justice for wickedness and holds its citizens to a standard that is much higher than mere negative liberty.

Conclusion.

If your heart so desires, you can read DeYoung’s concluding statements. I can also summarize them for you: DeYoung concludes with a messy hodgepodge of postmodern jargon ultimately discouraging his readers from even attempting to bring any semblance of Christianity into the political conversation and into political action. DeYoung makes this argument by scolding the reader for their supposed nostalgia for a political order that is unAmerican “and wasn’t nearly as successful as some people would like to remember it”.

Sure, DeYoung, you can make this argument if you’d like. But you must concede that your definition of “success” in the political realm must be summed up in mass infant sacrifice, mass immigration of criminals, the decimation of marriage, mass suicide rates, the lowest birth rates in human history, a faltering economic system and a monetary system built on nothing found in the objective world, a medical system that is monetized for harming their patients, record mass shootings, and the list goes on. If this is Kevin DeYoung’s definition of a successful political order, than he is correct to say that the regimes of olden days were not as successful as we remember them.

I refuse to accept this jargon though, and so should all Christians. DeYoung, like most modern theologians, benefits from the postmodern jargon that gives modern self-proclaimed “Christians” the option to opt out of political discussion because they are too passive and too stupid to engage. DeYoung’s sickening and overtly passive statement that “I still believe what I have always believed about the mission of the church, and I still believe amidst a new round of cries—this time from the right instead of the left—that we all must “Do something!” and “Say something!” that it’s okay for pastors to still be pastors.” is only a cry of surrender and passive willingness to detach the pastorate from the lives of real people who exist within a political order.

DeYoung can sit on his throne of lies and continue to build out a postmodern theology that is more in line with Michel Foucault than with Christ. And I fear that a day is coming soon when the judgment of God will be poured out on the wretched religious hypocrites of the American church for their unwillingness to see the truth and to act upon it in every aspect of their lives. DeYoung is one of many who values his own individualism and financial security more than the Word of our Lord. And as Christ says, you cannot serve two masters — you will hate one and love the other.

Books to read on the topic:

Why Liberalism Failed — Patrick Deneen

Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth — Robert P. George

The Constitution

The Declaration of Independence

The Bible

Zineb argues that the ideology that led the Left to believe that Israel and Britian were the fundamentally evil powers in Europe and the Middle East because of their “colonialization” is the same ideology that Zohran used to capture the attention and votes of the suicidal Democratic ideologues in New York City. The younger generations white colonialization guilt and Third Worldism philosophy were key factors in Zohrans ability to manipulate the American people in the largest city in the country to vote for a self-proclaimed Marxist Socialist. So, what happens to New York City next? Will it sprout into a utopia or fall into oblivion? Here’s my conversation with Zineb Riboua. I hope you enjoy!

Zineb’s article on The Free Press:

The Free Press

What the Right Gets Wrong About Zohran Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani is routinely labeled a “socialist” or an “Islamist sympathizer.” The right brands him a radical. The establishment (whatever that vague term encompasses) casts him as a provocateur, a liar who eats with his hands for clout. But these tags overlook the deeper ideological current animating his worldview. Mamdani, in truth, draws from a very distinct left-wing tradition: Third Worldism, a postcolonial moral project born in the mid-20th century that recasts politics as a global uprising against Western hegemony…

Read more

5 months ago · 186 likes · 307 comments · Zineb Riboua

Zineb’s Substack, Beyond The Ideological:

Beyond the Ideological

“All beings share a common world, but each creature has its own way of perceiving this world.” ― Montaigne “It is clear that the world is purely parodic, that each thing seen is the parody of another, or is the same thing in a deceptive form.” ― Bataille

By Zineb Riboua

Zineb on The Hudson Institute: https://www.hudson.org/experts/1467-zineb-riboua

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

This saga has culminated, in the past week, in a public reprimand (and who know what that even means) of Mary. You might be wondering what the goal of this reprimand is? Well, to put it simply, it’s to destroy her career and reputation for speaking truth against the medical regime during the COVID pandemic. They want her silenced. Who is they? You’ll be surprised to learn that the man leading the Texas Medical Board is none other than Republican Governor of Texas, Gregg Abbott. I thought the Republicans were the ones fighting against the authoritarians and oligarchs who tried to kill millions of people and control our lives during COVID – I guess I was wrong.

Mary has spent years of her life fighting for her and your medical freedom. She’s spent $250,000 on legal fees and has persevered through public humiliation because she believes what was done during COVID was immoral and evil. This is my interview with Mary Talley Bowden. I hope you enjoy!

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

Over the past week and a half a strange phenomenon most likely showed up on your social media timeline. A young man by the name of Brilyn Hollyhand was blasted onto the political scene by huge Conservative news outlets like the New York Post, who called him Charlie Kirk’s ‘protégé’, The Ben Shapiro Show, and Fox News. A video of Brilyn sitting in a private jet (that his friend owns and is letting him borrow for his new speaking tour) garnered 39 million views on X. Major Conservative political figures took to X to praise Brilyn and his supposed courageous willingness to go on tour and fight for American freedom and Conservative values – in the same way that his “predecessor”, Charlie Kirk, did.

Katy Faust, the founder of Them Before Us, a Conservative non-profit that focuses on child-first politics and rebuilding the nuclear family posted on X saying,

“I’ve never heard of this kid before. Sounds like this is his friend’s jet, but let’s pretend like it’s his. So what. He’s devoting his time and attention during freshman year to Charlie Kirk style campus debate. And conservatives are chewing the carpet because he’s rich? Do we or do we not want everyone modeling civic discourse? Or is it only rags to riches personalities that we can support?”

The governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, even posted about Brilyn saying,

“This young man, @brlynhollyhand, is doing a fabulous job of taking conservative ideas to college campuses across the country.”

There was also much backlash from many Conservatives who feel that Brilyn is inauthentic, fake, too preppy, and just plain weird. Even Antonio Brown (who isn’t Conservative, but is funny) posted on X saying, “We’re not going back to whatever this is”, in reference to Brilyn’s video.

But who is Brilyn Hollyhand? And why was there so much discussion about him over the past several days? I think the answer to the first question, who Brilyn is, will help answer the second question and will expose a massive problem at the heart of the Right-wing MAGA movement: a hypocritical “rules for thee but not for me” utilitarian attitude that will likely bring down the MAGA movement quickly and swiftly, if not corrected immediately.

To the first question, “who is Brilyn Hollyhand?,” a simple Google search will you give the basic information needed. He’s a 19-year-old freshman at Auburn University who grew up in Alabama and began his political journey at age 11 when he started his own Conservative Newspaper, The Truth Gazette. In 2023 he became the Chair of the RNC’s Youth Advisory Council, a role in which he is tasked with helping engage young voters. He has apparently written a book and is now on his “One Conversation at a Time” campus tour.

That’s a lot of accolades for a 19-year-old, don’t you think? How could someone this young and virtually unheard of until a couple of days ago have such a long list of achievements? Could it be because he spent his life working hard and clawing his way to the top, like his comparison, Charlie Kirk? Could it be because he read a lot of Ben Shapiro’s books and took his advice and worked his way through the RNC meritocracy and is now reaping the benefits of his labor?

No. If you take a closer look at Brilyn’s rise to fame and accomplishment, you’ll begin to notice some cracks in the surface. To begin, Brilyn’s father is the Vice President of a real estate company (that his grandfather owns – don’t you just love meritocracy?) that focuses on low income, affordable housing in Alabama. The company website boasts that their skill set includes,

“Utilizing the 9% and 4% tax credit program for public housing redevelopment.”

You know, the age-old Republican housing policy: steal money from taxpayers and make big and ugly apartment buildings and rent them out to people without jobs who have extensive criminal records and destroy neighborhoods and towns? That’s Brilyn’s father – a man who has gotten rich off Democrat policy.

But that’s just his dad, you can’t fault him for coming from money, right? Fair enough – but you can fault him for his inability to actually connect with the people he claims to be trying to reach. And you can fault him for taking on the flagrant and way-to-soon title of “protégé to Charlie Kirk”. One of the big differences between Charlie Kirk and Brilyn Hollyhand is that Kirk’s family wealth didn’t come from the very thing he claimed to fight against, government spending and intervention into the free marketplace. Kirk’s father owned an architectural firm that he built himself. Charlie Kirk dropped out of college and raised money to start his organization, Turning Point USA. He started with $10,000 and, I would assume, limited to no access to a private jet.

Hollyhand on the other hand (tongue-twister) has benefitted his entire life from his father’s willingness to play the system for personal gain. You have to ask yourself how someone who apparently started a newspaper in the fifth grade was able to interview such huge political figures like Ted Cruz, Sarah Huckabee, and Sean Hannity (to name a few) before he even turned 18. Why does this kid have special access to the largest names in the Conservative movement like Tucker Carlson and RFK Jr.? I would bet a lot of money that it has something to do with the fact that he comes from an extremely wealthy family with very good connections who got rich off of the backs of normal taxpayers.

But Brilyn and his family are only a microcosm of the hypocritical nature of the modern Right-wing movement. There are many figures within the “Conservative” movement who have the “win at all costs” mentality and are willing to live utterly inconsistent lives to win back their nostalgic 80s American Disneyland childhood.

People like Katy Faust, who I mentioned above, has in recent years gained prominence within Right wing circles for her apparent commitment to Biblical and Conservative family values, and her founding of an organization called Them Before Us has taken the utilitarian bait. She speaks at conferences and on podcasts about the necessity of two-parent, heterosexual, homes in which children can flourish and live without fear of neglect and abuse. She talks about the mother’s job to raise their children and the value of strong fathers who provide for their families. This all sounds good to a Christian Conservative like me until you dig just a little bit deeper.

For a woman whose whole schtick is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, a concept she defines well in this video, you would bet that she herself is living this principle out in her own life and is aiming at conducting her own behavior in a way that is in alignment with it, right? Sadly, this is not the case. In my interview with her, I learned that she sends her own children to the public schools in the Seattle, WA area. This news was shocking to me as I, a 26-year-old from Madison, WI, saw firsthand what the most liberal public-school systems in America are teaching when I was going to them throughout my childhood.

But Katy Faust cannot see her own logical fallacy. She can’t see that her lecturing others on getting married, having babies, and raising those children to be civilized and flourishing human beings is in direct contradiction to sending her own kids to public schools in which postmodern Marxism is the philosophical foundation on which they are taught. You would be hard-pressed to prove to me that the millennials and Gen Zers in New York City who are about to vote an actual Marxist into office as their Mayor, Zoran Mamdani, were educated in Christian schools or homeschools. Not a chance – they are products of the public school system. And Katy Faust claims to fight that system by doing what? Supporting it through sending her own kids to it? Make it make sense.

This sort of hypocritical and illogical approach to “Conservatism” is found all over the place in the modern Right-wing movement. Women lecturing other women on living “trad” lives and being home with the kids while simultaneously filming themselves for hours on end neglecting those same children. Men in the Big Conservative good ol’ boys clubs talking down to us lowly peasants about meritocracy while using their positions of authority and power to give their unqualified children positions within companies and even the government that come with nice paychecks and eternal financial security.

Think of Tucker Carlson’s son working for JD Vance or the owners of the Christian book publishing company, Crossway, hiring their son as the CEO of the company before he even finished his Masters in Divinity, which is required for such a position.

The inconsistencies are every which way within the modern Right-wing movement. The desire to create systems of wealth that can only benefit those who are in power and have the right family connections is entirely the opposite of the American meritocracy. America was built on innovation and risk, not stagnation and greed. Bailyn’s situation is only the most recent in a long line of Right-wing Marxist power games in which the wealthy and prominent belittle the lowly and illegitimate by justifying their means to reach particular ends– those ends being personal peace and affluence.

Share

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Trump Administration have talked quite a bit about the fact that there is a 400% increase in autism rates in children up to 8 years old between 2000 and 2022. They claim that in America we’ve gone from 1 in 150 children having autism to 1 in 31 children having autism. This spike in autism rates has had its effect on millions of families across the country and has raised serious questions related to the food we eat, the vaccines we take, and the medicine we consume on a regular basis. And now RFK Jr. announced that Tylenol, when taken late in pregnancy, is connected to the rise in autism rates. This announcement brought about a frenzy of reaction from left wing and right wing media outlets and liberal lunatics on TikTok.

Much of the liberal mainstream media claimed that RFK Jr. was a quack conspiracy theorist who has no business lecturing the American people on health and medicine. And the liberals on TikTok thought it best to stick it to the Trump administration by downing as much Tylenol as humanly possible while pregnant. But aside from what the liberal regime is saying, I wanted to know more about this new study that the White House released and its legitimacy. I want to know if Tylenol causes autism or is only associated with autism.

So, I reached out to Dr. Peter McCullough. You may know him from the days of COVID in 2020. Dr. McCullough was one of a few doctors across America who challenged the mainstream narrative related to the COVID Vaccine’s and treatments. His career and his reputation were publicly condemned and ridiculed for this. To this day Wikipedia says that “McCullough has promoted misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines.” Now THAT statement is an objective lie.

Dr. McCullough was willing to put his life’s work on the line during COVID and challenge the mainstream narrative, and he was right about everything he said. I thought it would be interesting to hear from Dr. McCullough about the new White House initiatives related to autism and their approach to learning about the autism epidemic. Are RFK Jr and his team actually just liars and conspiracy theorists? Or is the America Medical Industry stuck in a downward spiral of political ideological capture and a denial of facts and truth? Here’s my interview with Dr. Peter McCullough. I hope you enjoy.

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

Other Free Press stories from Josh Code:

The Free Press

A Muscle Man’s Message to America’s Lost Boys

It was raining when I met Jordan Castro at his office on the outskirts of Washington, D.C., so I opened my umbrella over us. As we walked to a nearby Chipotle, he shrank out from under it…

Read more

6 months ago · 190 likes · 191 comments · Josh Code

The Free Press

Arrested Again—for Holding a Sign

Last week, a 75-year-old grandmother named Rose Docherty was arrested in Scotland, for standing outside a hospital where abortions are performed while holding a sign that read: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want…

Read more

6 months ago · 55 likes · 22 comments · Josh Code

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

This story, created by Anthony “Tony” Aguilar was given legitimacy by mainstream media like MSNBC, CNN, and even Tucker Carlson. The only problem was that Anthony Aguilar made the story up out of thin air. The supposed murdered child was found weeks later and confirmed alive. Tanya reported on this for The Free Press and revealed that the entire story was blown up out of proportion for propagandistic purposes.

This conversation begins with Tanya discussing her reporting on Russia and her upbringing in Russia. She explains how the country has changed in her lifetime and how Putin is thinking through the war in Ukraine. We also talked about what the government needs to do, if anything, when media outlets are lying on purpose to conjure up paranoia and support for anti-American ideology and enemies. I hope you enjoy!

YouTube:

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts: